4.  The applicant was born in 1956 and lives in Bratislava.
5.  On 22 October 1993 the applicant brought an action in the Bratislava I District Court (then Obvodný súd, at present Okresný súd). He claimed that substitute business premises should be given to him after he had been prevented from using other premises which he had acquired at a public auction.
6.  On 26 October and 25 November 1993 the District Court invited the applicant to bring the action into line with the applicable procedural requirements and to pay court fees. The applicant responded on 18 November and 7 December 1993, respectively.
7.  On 21 March 1994 the District Court sought the defendant’s observations in reply. They were submitted on 5 April 1994.
8.  On 19 December 1994 the District Court held a hearing at which it allowed the applicant’s motion that the original defendant to his action be replaced by the Ministry for Administration and Privatisation of National Property (“the Ministry”). The District Court subsequently sought the Ministry’s observations in reply.
9.  On 25 May 1995 the District Court held a hearing at which it allowed the applicant’s motion that a new defendant be admitted to the proceedings, the local municipality.
10.  On 9 April 1996 the District Court requested that the applicant clarify the subject-matter of his action and on 3 June 1996 it held a hearing to establish its scope and legal nature. The applicant’s submissions were then sent to the defendants for comment.
11.  On 4 December 1997 the parties requested that the District Court adjourn a hearing, which had been scheduled for later that day, because they wanted to settle the case out of court. The hearing was adjourned until 28 January 1998, but no friendly settlement was reached.
12.  Of the six hearings held between 28 January and 2 September 1998 four were adjourned due to the applicant’s absence or his failure to submit documents.
13.  On 9 October 1998 the District Court dismissed the action. The applicant appealed to the Bratislava Regional Court (Krajský súd).
14.  The Regional Court held hearings on 29 April and 13 May 1999. The summonses were sent to the applicant and his lawyer, but neither of them appeared before the court.
15.  Following the hearing of 13 May 1999, on the same day the Regional Court upheld the first-instance judgment and the matter became res iudicata. It was found established that following a public auction of 16 June 1991 the applicant had acquired the lease of commercial premises for his business. However, as he had let a third party use these premises without the owner’s consent, the owner had terminated the lease by notice in 1998. In these circumstances the applicant no longer had any right to have the original or other premises. He could possibly still claim damages, but that was not the subject‑matter of the present action.
16.  The applicant then requested that the case be re-opened. He argued that the power of attorney of his lawyer had expired prior to the conclusion of the appellate proceedings and that this had been overlooked by the court of appeal. The request was dismissed by the District Court on 8 June 2001.
17.  On 20 June 1994 the applicant petitioned for divorce before the Bratislava III District Court and asked that the court decide on the question of custody of the children, two sons, after the divorce had been pronounced.
18.  The District Court sought the applicant’s wife’s observations in reply and, on 10 July 1994, appointed an ex officio representative (opatrovník) to act in the children’s name in the proceedings.
19.  Between 11 September 1995 and 31 October 2001 the District Court held nine hearings. Two of them were not attended by the applicant. As to one of these hearings his absence was the reason for the adjournment. On one occasion the applicant requested an adjournment in order to consult his lawyer.
20.  In the said period the District Court sought information on five occasions from various public authorities concerning the situation of the family.
21.  On 5 August 1999 the District Court appointed an expert in psychology to draw up a report on the children. The decision to seek expert evidence was upheld on appeal by the Regional Court on 29 October 1999. However, in the end, no report was produced despite several reminders.
22.  On 10 December 1999 the applicant requested an interim measure granting him custody of the children. The request was dismissed on 26 January 1999 and, on appeal, on 25 May 2000.
23.  On 6 March 2002 the District Court pronounced the divorce and approved a parental agreement concerning the care, education and maintenance of one of the sons. No ruling was made as regards the other son as he had reached the age of majority in the meantime. The parents waived their right of appeal and the judgment became final on 27 March 2002.
24.  On 21 September 1994 the applicant’s wife brought proceedings against him in the Bratislava III District Court. She claimed maintenance in respect of their children and later extended the action to claim custody of the children in the period prior to the divorce.
25.  On 2 November 1994 the District Court appointed an ex officio representative for the children in the proceedings.
26.  Between 22 November 1994 and 13 May 1996 the District Court held seven hearings. The applicant did not attend four of them and in three cases his absence led to the hearings being adjourned.
27.  On 27 July 1995 the District Court appointed a psychologist to prepare a report on the children within one month. The report was filed on 20 November 1995.
28.  On 23 April 1996 the District Court decided on the expert’s fees. The applicant challenged their amount. The Regional Court quashed the decision on 30 August 1996 and remitted the question of the fees to the District Court for re-examination.
29.  On 5 February 1997 the District Court again decided on the expert’s fees. The applicant again appealed.
30.  On 13 March 1997 the District Court held a hearing which the applicant did not attend. Following the hearing, on the same day, the District Court decided that pending a final decision on the applicant’s petition for divorce the custody of the children should be given to their mother. It further ordered the applicant to contribute towards their maintenance. In a separate decision the District Court issued an interim measure relating to one of the children. The applicant appealed against both the judgment and the interim measure.
31.  On 16 January 1998 the Regional Court held a hearing and on 26 February 1998 it upheld the ruling of 5 February 1997 concerning the expert’s fees and the interim measure of 13 March 1997. At the same time, the Regional Court quashed the judgment of 13 March 1997 and remitted the case to the District Court for re-examination.
32.  On 24 November 1998 the case was adjourned as a second expert opinion was needed.
33.  On 11 January 1999 the District Court requested the second expert opinion and ordered the parties to lodge a sum of money with the court in respect of the expert’s costs. The ruling concerning the costs was upheld on appeal by the Regional Court on 29 April 1999.
34.  On 10 December 1999 the applicant requested that he be given interim custody of the children. The request was dismissed on 10 January 2000 and the applicant appealed.
35.  On 30 May 2000 the expert filed the second report and on 6 June 2000 the District Court decided on his fees.
36.  The applicant appealed against the decision concerning the expert’s fees and, on 25 August 2000, he challenged the District Court judge for bias.
37.  On 18 October 2000 the Regional Court upheld the above decisions of 10 January and 6 June 2000. On 19 March 2001 it dismissed the challenge to the District Court judge.
38.  On 11 October and 20 November 2001 the District Court held hearings. At the former hearing the applicant’s wife withdrew her action in so far as it concerned one of the sons as he had reached the age of majority in the meantime. At the latter hearing the parents reached a parental agreement concerning the second son and the District Court adopted a judgment approving it. It became final on 15 February 2002.
39.  On 27 May 1998 the Bratislava – Staré mesto municipality sued the applicant for outstanding rent for his use of commercial premises.
40.  On 28 May 1998, in summary proceedings, the Bratislava III District Court issued a payment order (platobný rozkaz) for the amount claimed.
41.  The applicant challenged the order by way of a protest (odpor), as a result of which the order was ex lege vacated and the matter fell to be determined in ordinary proceedings.
42.  On 13 May 2002 the District Court granted a major part of the action and dismissed the remainder.
43.  On 27 March 2003, on the plaintiff’s appeal, the Bratislava Regional Court changed the judgment of 13 May 2002 and allowed the action in full. Despite repeated attempts it was not possible to secure service of the judgment on the applicant as he could not be reached at any of his addresses. The matter is therefore legally still considered as pending.
44.  On 5 December 1991 the applicant requested that the Bratislava III District Court enforce its earlier judgment ordering a private individual to pay a sum of money to the applicant.
45.  As the request was unclear, the District Court summoned the applicant to a hearing on 10 August 1993. The applicant failed to attend. The District Court invited him in writing to correct his submission and to pay court fees. The applicant responded on 19 August 1993.
46.  On 26 November 1993 the Bratislava III District Court transferred the case to the Bratislava I District Court in the judicial district where the applicant lived.
47.  On 23 March and 14 November 1994 the Bratislava I District Court requested the applicant to submit further and better particulars.
48.  Between 1994 and 1997 the Bratislava I District Court made several attempts to trace the defendant and to obtain information necessary for the enforcement. It inter alia sought assistance from the police and the Central Register of Inhabitants.
49.  On 14 October 1997 the Bratislava I District Court returned the case to the Bratislava III District Court on the ground that, according to the most recent information, the defendant lived within the Bratislava III district.
50.  On 5 November 1997, 8 January, 18 and 19 March and 11 May 1998 and 10 June 1999 the Bratislava III District Court made unsuccessful attempts to ascertain the defendant’s whereabouts and to trace his assets.
51.  On 8 July 1999 the President of the Bratislava III District Court admitted that the applicant’s complaint about undue delays in the proceedings was justified.
52.  On 26 July 1999 the Bratislava III Regional Court asked the applicant to eliminate formal shortcomings in his claim within ten days.
53.  On 31 August 1999 the Bratislava III District Court discontinued the proceedings on the ground that the applicant had not complied with the above request. The applicant appealed.
54.  On 31 May 2000 the Bratislava Regional Court upheld the decision of 31 August 1999. It thus became final. The Regional Court held that it was primarily the duty of the applicant to identify the defendant and to provide information necessary for the enforcement to be effected. The courts could be of assistance in ascertaining such information but they were not required to seek it of their own initiative. Since the applicant had been totally inactive, the enforcement could not be carried out. The Regional Court further observed that it had been a mistake on the part of the District Court not to address this problem at the initial stage of the proceedings.
55.  In August 1999 the applicant challenged the validity of a lease before the Bratislava I District Court.
56.  On 2 October 2001 the District Court dismissed the action. The applicant appealed.
57.  On 19 June 2003 the Regional Court upheld the first-instance judgment. As it had been impossible to secure the applicant’s presence, the Regional Court had appointed an ex officio representative for him under Article 29 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the proceedings had been conducted with the participation of the representative. The matter became res iudicata on 17 September 2003.
58.  On 18 August 1999 the applicant claimed compensation from three legal persons on the ground that he could not run a business which he had earlier acquired at a public auction.
59.  On 27 June 2001 the Bratislava I District Court dismissed the action in respect of two of the defendants. It stayed the proceedings as regards the third defendant observing that bankruptcy proceedings had been brought against it. The bankruptcy proceedings and the applicant’s action are still pending.
60.  In 2000 the applicant brought proceedings against the Ministry before the Bratislava II District Court. He challenged the validity of a public auction at which a business had been sold in 1991.
61.  On 16 January 2003 the District Court dismissed the action. The applicant appealed and the appeal is still pending.
62.  On 6 July 2001 the applicant filed five submissions with the Constitutional Court alleging a violation of his constitutional rights in the context of several of the above proceedings.
63.  By separate letters dated 12 and 13 September 2001 a constitutional judge informed the applicant under section 23a of the Constitutional Court Act that his submissions fell short of the formal requirements and that no proceedings could therefore be brought in their respect. The applicant did not pursue the matter.
64.  In a letter of 5 August 2002 the Registry of the Court informed the applicant of the amendment to the Constitution of the Slovak Republic which had entered into force on 1 January 2002 and which provided for a new remedy under the amended Article 127 of the Constitution in respect of delays in court proceedings. The applicant was requested to inform the Court whether he had used or intended to use this remedy in view of the requirement to exhaust domestic remedies pursuant to Article 35 § 1 of the Convention.
65.  In a letter of 14 January and a registered letter of 21 March 2003 the Registry informed the applicant about the Court’s decision of 22 October 2002 to declare inadmissible the application in the case of Andrášik and Others v. Slovakia (app. nos. 57984/00, 60237/00, 60242/00, 60679/00, 60680/00, 68563/01, 60226/00, ECHR 2002-IX) about the length of court proceedings on the ground that the applicants had failed to raise this complaint before the Constitutional Court under Article 127 of the Constitution, as amended from 1 January 2002. Pursuant to the postal delivery report (avis de réception) the applicant received the Registry’s registered letter on 28 March 2003.